Re: silane or plus charge slides
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From: | "J. A. Kiernan" <jkiernan@julian.uwo.ca> (by way of histonet) |
To: | histonet <histonet@magicnet.net> |
Reply-To: | |
Content-Type: | text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Gayle Callis wrote:
> Interesting comment about deterioration of plus charge slides.
>
> I just talked to my Erie Scientific rep, and he said the opposite about
> silanized slides, that they get better with age, but gave no scientific
> basis for that statement, any comments? I have always dated
> poly l lysine slides, since this is a protein, and tried to use them
> within 6 months.
Both types work by imparting a positive charge to the surface of
the glass. With silanized slides, amino groups are covalently
joined to the polymeric SiO2 molecular units of which glass is
made. Polylysine (there is no reason to use poly-L-lysine;
poly-DL-lysine is a bit cheaper, though both are expensive) is
a large molecule bristling with amino groups. Except in
strongly alkaline conditions, these amino groups are protonated
(positively charged). This allows them to attract the predominantly
negative charge of structural proteins of animal tissues. It also
sticks polylysine to the negatively charged (silicic acid) surface
of glass.
These charge attractions are easily changed by the
ambient pH. For silanized slides or polylysine, adhesion to the
"typical" proteinaceous section will be least effective in an
alkaline medium. Cartilage is different because its matrix is
full of sulphate-ester groups, which are strong acids - negative
at any pH. Cartilage can therefore be expected to adhere more
securely to a positively charged surface than most other tissues.
Chrome-gelatin is an old-fashioned but excellent adhesive that
works by forming strong coordinate bonds with oxygen atoms of
carboxyl groups, which are present in all proteins and in many
lipids and carbohydrates. It works well in alkaline conditions,
but fails if strong acids are used - as in some antigen retrieval
procedures.
> However, the newer lot seems to be the problem. Thanks to the manufacturers
> who put those invaluable lot numbers on products, at least they can see
> if others are cplaining/having problems.
> Beginning to think gremlins live in buffers.
It's easy to believe something could go wrong in silanizing a
huge number of slides. I do my own, by hand, and have had one
bad batch of 100 (it was the first attempted) in 3 years. They
were bad only for a pretty severe test that involved heating in
an alkaline solution. Chrome-gelatin was somewhat better.
Commercial silanized slides seem to be a bit better than those
we make in the lab, but they are frightfully expensive.
The commercial silanized slides don't come with a prescription
for making you own. I suspect that instead of the regular
published technique they use a reagent that covalently binds
a quarternary nitrogen (positive charge at any pH) to the glass.
Our local silicon chemist says this should be better, and has
advised me about potentially better silanizing compounds.
Some of these will soon be tested ....
Rather a long comment on a sensible answer to a significant
question! If you've bothered to read it to the end, then,
Thanks. Please let me know if you disagree, and why. Email
has reintroduced the noble tradition of the Letter as a form
of discourse (our 4 bears would have said "intercourse")
among scientists. It's unfortunate that the writing and mailing
of real letters on paper are now too costly for frequent use,
unless you're sending an advert or a bill.
John A. Kiernan,
Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology,
The University of Western Ontario,
LONDON, Canada N6A 5C1
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>